Facebook Badge

GALLERY Pages

Friday, March 6, 2015

Creationism vs. Evolution

by Gene Zimmer

There has been and continues to be a battle over the beliefs involving "how everything came to be". These, briefly stated, are:

1) Creationism - the notion that a Supreme Deity, or God, through an act of Divine Will, simply intended the Earth and entire universe into existence. And so it has been ever since. Some also believe that while God is responsible for originally "putting it all here" that God "used" physical and biological evolution as the mechanical means of bringing into existence the wide and varied forms of life. From this view both the Creation and the Evolution theory are claimed to be true.

2) Theory of Evolution - evolution actually involves what happens "after" the world and universe is here, but the term is used in this battle. From the viewpoint of "modern science", as held, supported, and promoted by atheists, materialists, and secular humanists, the universe started with the "Big Bang" (or some other reasonable facsimile thereof) or simply is self-existing (whatever that means). Once the universe was "started" it "evolved" due to a never-ending series of accidents which somehow spontaneously brought into existence molecules, chemicals, light, energy, cells, biological organs, animals, plants, planets, stars, and all forms of life. The development of life, and even consciousness itself, is viewed as the end result of long series of "natural" processes which do not occur as a result of any intention or cause outside of accidental forces. "Natural" implies a strict demand that no God, being, consciousness or external intelligent agent of any sort had anything to do with the entire chain of events over millions, billions and even trillions of years.

It is absurd to engage in such a battle of ideologically driven notions. It is equally absurd, and wrong, that the government has been duped into supporting the beliefs of one group (evolution, humanism, the materialistic interpretation of the social sciences) while refusing to support and even attacking the beliefs of the other group (creationism - religion). Why?

In both cases what is actually involved here, at the most basic level, is beliefs. The proponents of evolution and the Big Bang Theory would each like to think what they say is "true", "scientific" and "factual", but the real bottom line truth is that, when it comes right down to it, they "believe" in it just as much as the religious folks "believe" in theirs. Neither belief corresponds to any actual perceivable, observable, or verifiable tangible thing or occurrence(s).

I am not arguing for one or the other. Personally I think they are both incorrect, at least from the viewpoint of verifiable events, reason, honest intelligence, and tangible experience. But, also, who knows? And in the end it’s fundamentally only a matter of personal opinion and what anyone chooses to believe.

From the viewpoint of a 100% application of REASON, logic and "science", how can anyone seriously consider the notion that the entire universe spontaneously, for no reason at all (because there was no previous cause or force existing), suddenly appeared? This idea is so completely contradictory to everything else modern science has discovered and established.

The law of the conservation of energy implies that the "amount" of energy-matter is fixed, and unable to be added to or subtracted from. It can change "form", but the net "amount" cannot change. Most everyone agrees to that, yet, the same people have no trouble accepting the idea that the entirety of the universe, involving almost infinite amounts of matter, energy, particles, electrons, protons, neutrons, and so on, appeared out of nothing. Bang! At one moment there is nothingness, a Void, total emptiness (this sounds strangely like Vedic "religious" descriptions of the beginning of the universe….), and then, wham!, suddenly there is this immense spinning mass of nuclear gas and incredible spontaneous explosions from which everything else originated.

What sort of faith does believing this depend on? The concept of something, and this being a pretty immense and substantial "something", spontaneously appearing out of a previous complete absence of anything is nothing short of miraculous, magical, and even strangely reminiscent of the statement in Genesis where God proclaimed, "Let there be Light and there was Light". Whether one attributes the action to a God or to an accident, either way there was spontaneous creation or the "bringing into existence" of the universe. Whatever concept one accepts, whether the "religious" or the "scientific", requires a belief in things and events which are quite incapable of verification, proof or the slightest evidence. Additionally, none of us have any experience, not anywhere, not ever, of something happening or coming into existence without an earlier cause. Physical events and conditions do not happen without something first acting upon it to make it happen. This notion is a basic concept of all legitimate science, yet when it comes to the beginning of the universe (and the evolution of all things and life) this concept is conveniently forgotten. This is not a defense of the "God" explanation, only a statement that things don't happen without a cause - they never have and they never will. Religious people may use this as part of their argument, but there is no evidence that "God" was the cause referred to and required to explain "what" caused it all.

Blaming it on some "cosmic accident" is as ludicrous as anything else. What does this even really mean? If there was nothing else there at all, in any way or form, then how could there have been an "accident". What? Possibly "two completely empty universes were moving through space, each minding their own business, when they contacted, and suddenly out of the contradictory natures of the two, our universe was begun?" Of course, how could they be "moving through space", if first there wasn’t any "space", and they really didn’t exist in any form and therefore couldn’t be moving? There has never been an "accident" anywhere which didn’t involve things, events and situations. Calling it an "accident" is simply coming up with some abstraction which explains a phenomena one doesn’t understand and is unable to adequately explain, and accepting this notion (of a cosmic accident) betrays one’s intellectual dullness. The truth is that you and no one else has a clue how it all started, where it came from, or why. But you "think" you know. You are "convinced" you know. You "believe" you know. And while many people may view this as being true for the "religious person", it is also equally true for the modern "scientific person" (who thinks he is immune from all this - but he’s not at all). Actually, why the pressing need or obsession to believe anything about it at all? Why simply not just "know that you don't know"? Be aware of your actual inability to ascertain by direct experience or otherwise how it all came into existence and how it all evolved. And in the end, really, what does it matter? How can or will knowing or not knowing how the universe began and evolved effect you or anything else?

What requires more faith, and possibly less rationality, the idea that a Supreme Being made it all, or the idea that it simply appeared, uncaused, out of nothing, for no reason at all? At least the first example of a Supreme Being involves a mechanism which would align with everything else we admit to be true about this universe - cause and effect - that things, events, situations, motion, and conditions result from earlier causes or intentions. It’s quite funny how this notion of mandatory and all-occurring cause and effect, which is a primary statement of dogma to modern science, is conveniently abandoned when it suits them in the case of the beginning and evolution of the physical universe.

The modern "reasoning" person firmly acknowledges the notion of cause and effect and applies it to everything in his experience. Yet, in the case of the formation and development of the universe, this strict rule is casually tossed to the wind by those who claim to be "more rational" and "adhere to reason and science".

Few of us would say things and situations don’t follow from earlier causes. Rocks fly in the air because little boys throw them. A messy room gets cleaned up because someone decides to and then cleans it up and puts various things into order. Television, radios and computers exist because someone thought them up and then others made them. This can go on for many things. None of those things would exist or occur unless someonethought to do them, intended to do them, and then did them. In our own personal experience of cause and effect, nothing gets done that we don't intend to get done and then cause to get done. In our own personal experience of and with life and reality, things happen and appear because someone makes them happen or appear.

The notion of everything appearing spontaneously out of nothing is supplied as a "scientific" theory because nobody has any other "reasonable" explanation - "reasonable" meaning that it must be explained without any resort to "invisible agents" such as God, spirits, Divine Will or disembodied beings. The truth is simply that there is no explanation for it within the framework of materialistic science. The spontaneous coming into existence of the universe, all by itself, and for no reason, is as much a fairy tale, derived from the realm of pure imagination, as any religious notions. This would be fine as long as it’s said to be only that, simply atheory, a guess, a product of someone's overactive imagination, and not pretended to be something else - a "scientific fact" or "fact of reality". But, first, neither you, nor me, nor anyone else was there to observe whatactually happened, so I think it best (and intellectually honest) if we all right now just stop this absurd speculating, or at least stop pretending that our speculations represent anything more than mere personal fancy and opinion. Second, how is believing the idea that everything appeared out nothing, for no apparent reason and with no apparent cause, more "scientific" and "sensible" than the idea that a Supreme Being did it? From a strict application of reason, possible verification, and experience, both notions are ludicrous.

But Man, doing what he always has done from his puny stature and location on this small planet on the edge of a galaxy, takes his concepts and abstractions about all manner of things, assumes them to actually correspond to something (which they too often don’t), enforces these notions on everything around him (people, institutions, and society), and generally wreaks chaos and havoc. The religion of Christianity did this in the Middle Ages, and "modern science" is doing it now with the "social sciences" under the names of psychiatry, psychology and sociology, and in subjects involving the formation of the universe and the evolution of all things and life.

The point isn’t whether one is right or one is wrong, although this is generally the point for those arguing about it. The point is that ultimately, what any person decides to believe has much more to do with personal opinion and fancy than with anything approaching even the slightest degree of fact or proof. BOTH beliefs, BOTH positions require an equal amount of faith, which is by definition, belief or confidence in things unseen(or unproven). Neither theory or view of "how it all began" can be proven, not really, and which view one accepts depends much more on one’s natural tendencies or individual likings, than upon any actual stream of "logic" or "arguments" either one uses to support their position. If you honestly follow the arguments back for either position or argument, a point is reached with both where some basic assumption is accepted which cannot be proven - at least not to the satisfaction of the person holding the opposing view. At this point belief or faith takes over, and this occurs equally, with the same degree of intensity, in both the creationism argument andthe Big Bang argument. The person of religion is no more of, and not to any greater degree, a "believer", exhibiting "faith" and "worship", than the person of "science". They each "believe", possess "faith", and "worship", and only the objects of their belief, faith and worship differ. The religious believe in and worship God (in some form). The scientific, humanistic, and atheistic believes in and worships Nature (in some form). Each conceives of all manner of concepts, explanations, and relationships within their framework of understanding, but in fact, they fundamentally do the same thing - only the object of their belief is different..

Neither the proponent of religion or science, though, is usually capable of seeing or admitting this. Most people who "believe" in anything, whether religious or scientific, are incapable of sensing or perceiving clearly that what they are doing is "believing". They tend to say things like "it’s true", "I know it", "I can prove it", and "it’s obvious to me". They use all types of "logic" and "reason" to explain, defend, and justify their position. The religious person explains, "God exists. I know it. I am sure". The "humanist" explains, "Nature is all there is. It's self-sufficient and explains itself. Science has shown this to be true. I know it. I am sure". The mechanism of belief, faith and arbitrary choice of the basic assumptions exist equally, and in the same way, for both. Once the basic assumptions are established, then the rest follows naturally and "logically" from the strictly held basic claims. The religious worships the unseen and invisible world of spirit. The materialist worships the unseen laws (as he imagines them) of astronomy, chemistry, biology and biological evolution (i.e. Nature).

I am not going to make a case or argue against the religious view, because that has been done sufficiently already by modern philosophers, psychologists and "reasoning proponents of science". Many people agree with the "modern" notion that religion often believes in things unprovable by accepted scientific standards. They do, but the critical attitude "science" all to often takes against religion is a very apt example of "the pot calling the kettle black". Or, "one shouldn't throw stones who lives in a glass house". Or, don't be so critical and demanding when you basically are doing exactly the same thing.

People call many things "science". Science should refer only to subjects derived from the honest and careful application of the scientific method. This involves theorizing, testing, observing test results, reworking theories, retesting, and coming up with theories and understandings (i.e. laws, formulas) which correspond to real things and situations which get actual results. The application of the scientific method in the physical sciences has produced many legitimate and useful understandings. These have enabled the prediction and control of many chemical, electronic and physical processes. This prediction and control has not been true for the social "sciences" because they are riddled with so much opinion, bias, and wishful thinking not based upon legitimate observation, facts and verifiable things. But they pretend their subjects are "scientific" and associate themselves with the notion of science to gain credibility, power and influence. This is very true for the subjects of sociology, psychology and psychiatry. It is also true to much of modern medicine because the subject has a severe bias to observe and address symptoms exclusively while ignoring studies or methods dealing with causesof illness. The result has been drugs and surgery, both approaches which attack and destroy symptoms instead of addressing underlying actual causes. This pretension to being scientific is also true for the more theoretical aspects of astronomy and physics.

The Problem With The Scientific Explanation of the Universe

Some of you will argue, quite inanely I might add, that "science has done extensive studies, and tests, involving spectral analysis of stars and galaxies and has shown how the universe was formed". What "science" has done, in fact, is put together some results of various studies which they happily interpret and use in a way to attempt to justify and explain their pet theories. Sure, it "might" be true, but then anything "might" be true. But please, let’s be honest, at least to ourselves, most of anything anyone says about the creation of the universe is almost totally of the nature of "theory". Until some of us can go back in time and watch what actually happened, I suspect it will always remain largely in the realm of theory - despite what the "believers" may say and demand. Plus, really, who cares? What does how or in what way the universe came about have to do with the price of gas? Or anything else? Why don’t we all simply forget about it and get on with living? Why don't we each get busy and make a better family, town, city, or world? But apparently that seems to be not as easy as it sounds - for too many folks on both sides of the argument.

If either the rabid humanist or the proselytizing preacher loses sleep over the question of "how it all began" only shows to me that both have much too much time on their hands, need to begin dealing with real people and real life (instead of ideas and concepts), and get a life. They are both too willing and eager to tell everyone else what to think and do. I dislike all totalitarians, no matter what their form or label.

It’s also interesting how anyone can possibly believe the idea that scientists are capable of looking at current existing evidence and data, extrapolating this back in time over periods encompassing billions and trillions of years, and clearly perceive (or deduce) how everything happened and unfolded. Please! Modern police have trouble investigating and figuring out what happened in simple crimes which occurred three days ago! And that’s with "fresh" evidence. Different witnesses generally always report having seen different versions of the same exact accident or crime. This is common knowledge. But we are to believe, and many of us "science oriented" folks do believe exactly so, that the modern scientist is somehow immune to these failings and is capable of reverse investigating, not back only 5 or 10 years, but millions and billions of years! These people are just as delusional as the religious proponent they so readily criticize. Actually they are more deluded, because while the religious person tends to admit at a point that he ultimately believes because he simplychooses to believe, the scientific person remains determined to claim and demand that he is right and possesses evidence and reason for his position way past the point of where any "logic" or "scientific reasoning" is actually occurring.

Darwin's theory of evolution supposes that all life evolved due to some (unexplained but inferred) biological urge or capability of the organism to mutate in an attempt to survive over time. It proposes that environmental forces acted upon the organism to induce it to somehow modify itself structurally and thereby enable itself to survive better. The notion of natural selection states that those organisms which come up with the bestmodifications survive better, while the others fail and die out. This became the concept of "survival of the fittest". As with the traditional modern view of behaviorism, which follows conceptually from Darwin's theory, the environmental forces are viewed as the primary element of determination and concern. What they fail to mention is that without some indwelling intelligence of some sort, how would or could the biological organism ever modify itself, or more, even know how to modify itself to come up with these better biological structures which would enable it to better survive in it's natural environment? But as with behaviorism they happily ignore any such idea. More to the point though, this point matters only if there is any validity to the theory of evolution, which there isn't.

Evolutionists even get more adamant about there being a complete absence of any causal agent in the scheme of things, and often assert that all the changes in organism form and structure occur only as a result of minor accidental genetic alterations which have (and continue to occur) over very long periods of time. It is upon these random genetic changes occurring over extremely long periods of time that "natural selection" acts to encourage the better fit structures to remain and the poorer adapted structures to fail and die out. It isimagined that this process has produced all the varied classes and species of life from a long ago single cell ancestor. This is possibly an interesting theory, providing cute discussions at dinner parties, but it is based on very little actual evidence and absolutely no observation of any sort (other than very circumstantial "evidence" which is happily interpreted within a commonly accepted scientific and naturalistic paradigm).

One needs to really get a concept of just how much time would be required for all this. For a single cell organism to mutate, develop variations; for "natural selection" to act upon this cell and result in a better surviving new cell form, the earlier cell to continue with other mutations; the new variations to continue on this same path - mutating and developing new forms different from each other. At some point an "accident" (due to solar or cosmic radiation - convenient explanation) occurs and the cell splits but stays connected, so there is now a two cell organism. This all takes very much time. And we are now only up to 2 cells - realize this is all very theoretically because no scientist in any lab anywhere has ever seen a single cell organism develop into a multi-cellular organism from "natural evolution" or from any other cause. The accidental mutations continue and the simple life form becomes a 3-4-5 and 6 cell conglomerate. These cellular forms, after a tremendousamount of time, become quite complex and begin to take various forms of simple animal and microscopic plant life. Realize that according to the theory, thousands and possibly millions of genetic mutations occurred resulting in numerous variations of cellular forms, some of which dies out, and some of which survived. I could continue on describing this scenario, but I am sure the reader gets the point. There is simply not enough time, since the very beginning, to enable such a process to work within the framework of how this process is claimed to work

This gets even more involved, and very hard to believe, when one considers how these small and simple life forms changed into 1) larger life forms, and 2) multi-system life forms with complex organs and various separate yet interconnected systems (i.e. circulation, digestive, lymphatic, nervous, etc.) For example take the human eye, which Darwin himself admitted presented a very major barrier to his own acceptance of the theory of evolution. The human eye involves a tremendous number of muscles, mechanisms, and chemical reactions which translate into electrical current - which travels down the optic nerve. The eye involves very separate and distinct small systems which act together to enable vision - the lens, the cornea, the muscles controlling the lens relationship to the cornea, and the chemical reactions resulting in electrical current. The problem is that each of these by itself is useless and serves no survival purpose, so how could each have "evolved" separately, and then come into a working relation with the other smaller organic systems? The eye is useful and has survival value only as a completed organic system. No force of natural selection acting upon accidental genetic mutations could or would ever produce a human eye. Real existing life forms contain many similar organs and systems which are incapable of being explained by the theory of evolution.

Another point is complexity. A single human cell contains mechanism, functions and interactions which also could not have evolved separately because the operation depends on numerous interactions between different cellular things and functions to produce the final result. If six different cellular things and functions act together in a way where the final result has survival value, and the individual things and functions have no survival value in themselves, then how could this complex system ever have evolved according to the theory of evolution? They couldn't have (and didn't). A single cell appears to function as an intelligently designed machine. Anyone familiar with cellular functioning is made very aware of the incredible inner workings, timing, processes, and interrelations within a single cell. It works very much like a precision watch, only much more complex. Imagining that this could possibly result from some process of accidental genetic mutation acting over eons is absurd. It's as absurd as the common example where some folks claim (idiotically) that if a chimp were given a typewriter, a stack of blank paper, and eternity, that he would eventually come up with the entire plays of Shakespeare. All by accident! But this is basically what the "scientists" claim who assert the legitimacy of the theory of evolution. Stars, planets, light, the Earth, you, and me - we are all accidents of some metaphorical mindless chimp typing away at some imaginary typewriter. Only it's worse with the theory of evolution and scientific materialism - there isn't even a chimp! The typewrite types itself! People will believe anything.

Modern geneticists play with organisms and modify their structure. They do enable better surviving organisms through their tinkering. Interestingly, this is the only biological modification any of us have ever observed. These are the only examples of new organisms coming about that any of us have ever experienced and directly observed. It would make much more sense, from a strictly logical point of view based upon legitimate observation and experience, to infer a similar agent acting over eons which intentionally created mutations and adaptations, such as a God or some form of advanced consciousness or even a superior alien race, than to assume biological forms adapted all on their own. But any of these alternative views are considered unfounded and "unscientific". Or so they say. Truthfully, it is more scientific than their view, because what they propose has no basis in fact. At least the idea of a God or an alien race (remember the movie 2001?) adheres tosomething we have actually experienced and know can occur - the intentional biological adaptations of modern day geneticists. That aligns with something which is observable and which corresponds to actual current scientific procedures. Yet the theory of evolution is taught in every public school and asserted as official scientific dogma. It's a fairy tale. Ironically the modern proponent of evolution will be the first to jump up and attack anyone asserting that God created all life or that some alien race manipulated the biological forms of animals and even Man. Who believes in the bigger fairy tale? This is a case of idiots arguing over idiotic things claiming each other as the bigger idiot.

If the idea of evolution and natural selection is correct there must be thousands and even millions of life forms which mutated, didn't quite succeed, and died out, leaving only the successful ones to continue. There would have to be all sorts of animals with half-legs, partial wings, and finger stubs - and many other structural variations. But there is no fossil evidence of any of this. Unless they would have us believe that every new life form simply presented itself in the perfect new form, complete with new arms, legs, tails, or whatever, without any intermediate steps. But that's not what the theory asserts. Where are the birds with stubs of wings, or half wings - the evolutionary steps or missing links leading up to the final successful biological form? Again, since there is no evidence of them, it seems that if all life did evolve from a common genetic ancestor, as proposed by this theory, it makes more sense to posit an agency which intentional brought about the adaptations and then placed them all here. This explanation most closely aligns with the facts of fossil evidence. In fact, the majority of life, from all archeological evidence did do just that - it appeared, seemingly out of nowhere about 600 million years ago. Before that there is basically no evidence of the many and varied life forms, and then suddenly, a tremendous variety of life appeared, as if suddenly placed here from somewhere else. That is the fact of fossil evidence. Again, I am not saying God did it - I am just saying there is no proof that "evolution" did it, following some "natural law" or materialistic process. Both views lack proof or evidence.

Similarly Man is said to have evolved from monkeys. The search for the missing links still goes on, but have never been found. The theory demands there be intermediate evolutionary stages between the apes and Man yet none are ever found, despite much looking. But they hold onto their unproven theories as firmly as any staunch religious person. I am not asserting the creationist view is right - I am simply showing the view of the evolutionist is unfounded by all honest dictates of reason and holds no validity. Darwin's notions cannot be proven anymore than the idea that a God created all life can be proven. Belief in either depends upon faith, although "modern scientists" like to imagine themselves free of such "religious" tendencies - which they aren't. I doubt either view is correct, and consider the entire battle between the two to be meaningless. The battle of religion versus science in this arena is simply a case of the entire arena itself being invalid. The answer will most likely not be found within the playing field where this ideological, conceptual and theoretical battle occurs.

If evolution worked as these people say it does it should always operate. Biological organisms should be changing and unique biological forms should right now be coming about in the endless attempt of life forms to adapt to the environment (or through accidental genetic mutations), and present better and more survivable biological structures. But it doesn't happen. Is the process temporarily on hold? Has the theory taken a vacation? I maintain that the theory never referred to anything having any basis in reality in the first place. It's atheory, and not a very good one at that. But it is called "science" and almost the entirety of the modern educated world rushes to embrace the theory of evolution. If there is anything to understand from the theory of evolution and the scientific community's almost rabid demand for it's acceptance and legitimacy, it's Mans continuing tendency to believe in things, rigidly and forcefully, which have no honest basis in observable fact.That is a scientific fact. We can all find many examples of that.

Belief and Faith Parading as Science

I am sorry to say, oh yea of scientific faith, that the modern "disciple of science" is often in no way different than any adherent of religion he or she frequently looks down upon, considers irrational, or assumes inferior, especially and primarily in the social sciences.

Basically, what it comes down to is this - what either believes, equally to the same degree, is solely and only abelief. In the end, it is a choice of what one decides to agree with and believe. It comes down to faith, either in the "religious" explanation or the "scientific" explanation. That it makes you feel good is irrelevant. Both "feel" this. That it makes "mores sense" is meaningless. Both think it "makes more sense". At the most basic level each simply asserts what they tend to like as an opinion, and then spend endless hours theorizing, explaining, and reasoning to defend their largely arbitrary views. That's okay. I can live with that because it recognizes and accepts man's tendency and right to believe and assert whatever he chooses. What I can't live with is anyone or any group which sets their opinions as facts, more right and important than anyone else's, and rams them down the rest of our throats - whether these be religious, scientific, political or otherwise.

The problem is that the religious folks, today, are generally content to be left alone, do their own thing, and allow others to do the same, while the scientific and humanistic factions are not so generous. In fact, the entiremodus operandi of the secular humanists, Darwinists, atheists, naturalists, and materialists is to do everything they possibly can to get into everybody else’s business and enforce their opinions upon everyone else.

It is stupendously ironic. The secular humanists, materialists, and atheists talk endlessly about the flaws of religion, especially how religion has always tended to force its opinions and beliefs on others, and they do their damnedest to ensure religion cannot influence anything anywhere. It's true - religion has often done this, and I also hold a great disdain for the oppressive activities of past European Christianity such as the Spanish Inquisition, and the attacks on early scientists such as Copernicus and Leonardo Da Vinci. But they fail to notice that they are now doing exactly the same thing they criticize past religion of having done. They are forcing, having aligned with and procured the backing of government agencies, their belief system upon the rest of the society.

Past religions often allied themselves with the State thereby promoting, often forcefully, a specific belief system over others. Thought, belief and behavior were dictated and controlled. Today, "science", "behavioral psychology", "secular humanism", "psychiatry" and "materialism", all of which are nothing more than alternate systems of belief about the nature of the universe and Man, have allied with the State, also promoting, with no option for refusal, a specific set of beliefs over others. Thought, belief and behavior are again dictated and controlled. Today the justification is that "it's scientific truth". In the past the justification was that "it's religious truth". Yap - Yap - Yap! It's the same action of enforcing ideology and it never seems to stop.

Modern "science", "materialism" and "secular humanism" are fundamentally, when examined down to their basic axioms and postulates, only another arbitrary set of beliefs about Man, the universe, and how Man relates to the Universe. There is no ultimate "truth", "rightness" or "possession of accurate knowledge". Modern materialism is an ideology. There is as much "faith" involved with their beliefs, as with anything associated with the label "religious". And sadly, these adherents of social "science" will enforce their opinions and views, through mandated education in the public schools, psychiatry, social services utilizing modern psychological theories, and in other ways, on everyone else, violating every principle they claim to promote.

The "atheist" argues that everyone should be "free" to believe whatever they choose. But in application, they are very happy to secure a monopoly for their opinions on what is "correct belief" in society. The same is true for the secular humanist. They argue all day long about guaranteeing the rights of freedom of thought, limiting coercion of belief, and allowing "reason and truth" to reign, but in actual fact and results, they interpret this to mean "freedom to accept only their specific and limited notions of reality", which they call "modern, scientific, and educated".

They are the modern tyrants. They excuse their abuses against humanity, just as have every past tyrant, with claims and the firm belief stating, "I am right" (and "you are wrong"). They "know" they are right. They "believe" they are right. They "consider" they possess the "true and accurate understanding of Man and the universe". Call it "science" or call it "religion", but there is no difference when it comes down to actual practical results. The actual thing they are both doing is the same - forcing beliefs and the results of their beliefs upon everyone else. And continuing in the same vein of all past tyrants, these opinions and beliefs (which they consider "truth") are fundamentally incorrect.

When will people finally grow up, mature and wake up to the fact that, in the end, whatever we each choose to accept ultimately lies with personal opinion, belief and choice, and not much anything else! The reasoning and educated discussions of the priests of the Spanish Inquisition were as complex, erudite and knowledgeable as any modern proponent of psychiatry. The priests of the Spanish Inquisition were the mosteducated people of their time - and look what they believed and did! Psychiatry and the past priests, they both make sense in their contexts. But both are severely flawed with nonsensical basic assumptions about Man and the world which render their views absurd. When will people finally cease demanding others accept the same as them, andreally allow others to think, believe and do whatever the hell they want? Stop assuming you know what is totally correct and right, or at least stop demanding that everyone else conforms to your opinions about what is totally correct and right. This applies just as much to the modern scientist who claims and asserts his rightness using justifications of "scientific proof", "logic" and "reason", and who enforces his views on the rest of the population through government, political, educational and other social systems.

There is no free market place of ideas in the western societies. Big money interests have aligned with the materialistic view of the social sciences in the form of humanism, pragmatism, social Darwinism, modern psychology and psychiatry, and enforce this view upon modern Man. It occurs through drug companies, foundations, educational systems, governments, insurance companies, research corporations and the media. Never at any time in the entirety of human history has a specific ideology been so systematically enforced upon the general public to their continual detriment and harm.

Note clearly that I am not attacking "science" or the advances which science has bestowed upon Man through the work it has done in the physical sciences - chemistry, biology, mechanics, physics, electronics, etc. This discussion applies only to what "science" has done with the subject of Man, his mind and societies - psychology, psychiatry, economics, politics, and sociology - the social sciences. These are much moreideological, being based upon concepts and theories, rather than scientific, or based upon facts. They claim to be "scientific", but they are no such thing.

What differentiates Man from all other observable phenomena in the entire physical universe is his awareness, and consciousness, and the resultant abilities to reason, imagine, recall, consider, value, admire, believe, find meaning, plan, choose, intend and initiate action (to mention only a few). The mind of Man is what needs to be recognized as the prime factor for Man. It is this alone which enables societies to exist, and also anything else Man has created or developed. But behaviorism has tossed out the notion of an indwelling mind or causative agent. It is Man's tendency to find meaning and believe (largely in concepts and opinions) which then turns into a demand for others to view things similarly that causes all the trouble. But Man will never stop finding meaning and asserting belief - this is what Man does. What he needs to stop doing is forcing his own personal opinions on everyone else. Only an understanding and acceptance of Man from this view will lead anywhere decent - Man as a mind.

The tendency of modern "science" as applied to the social sciences has been the attempt to force Man within a tight framework of conceptual understanding - which regards Man as nothing more than a biological "animal" and who is part of a larger, and assumedly more important, unified organic whole. There has been a gross error in the assignment of relative importances. Man, as a biological organism, is obviously part of the environment of nature, and interrelates with numerous other "natural" influences. Ever since Darwin entered the scene there has been a tendency to view and conceive of all life and the universe as a single, unified whole. This is true, but only from a certain conceptual viewpoint of some human, thinking mind. Otherwise, this notion doesn't exist. It's true from a conception taken, endorsed, and accepted by a mind. Treating this viewpoint as the entirety of existence and as explaining everything is simply another case of Man conceiving something about himself and others and forcing this conception upon Man's actual behavior in life and existence. Also, and this is key, this view of the importance of the larger, organic whole, or environment, or Nature, detracts from the view that Man is an entity of consciousness, an individual, and a creative source of thought, imagination, cause, will, self-determinism and responsibility. Psychology used to deal with the study of the mind, by definition, but not today. The mind, and all it does, has been flushed down the toilet.

As long as the current view of Man continues to conceive of Man as only a biological entity, subject to genetic, biochemical and environmental influences alone, so will any real chance of Man attaining higher and better states for himself, and the societies he forms, remain elusive and non-reachable.

Scientific methods of discovery and research have never been applied to the mind of Man. Instead science has chosen to deny and ignore the mind of Man, because they assume it is "invisible" and can’t be observed and tested as any other object of research using scientific methods. Man is viewed as any other rock, molecule, energy or atom, and handled accordingly - with force. In all cases the mind of Man is ignored - and this will always have severe ramifications for the individual and the society.

The mental functions of awareness, attention, will, intention, imagination and responsibility, to name a few, doexist, are "things", and follow certain "laws", but have never been investigated with an aim to enable further control and understanding by each human being themselves. This is probably largely due to the fact that there is no "profit" in understanding any of this. That’s a really sad statement of the current condition of Man’s concern for truth and of his flimsy intention to elevate individuals and societies towards better things, conditions and states. The main intention of any person or group aiming to understand the mind is to understand and control the minds of others - for their own purposes, profits, or imagined gain. Rarely is there an intention to bring about an understanding of the mind to increase the self-understanding and self-control of the mind and its ability by and for the person themselves.

There is no absolute right or wrong, just as the secular humanist demands. There is probably no ultimate truth, just as the moral relativist proclaims. There are no absolute facts outside of personal belief and experience, just as the educational psychologist asserts. There is no meaning or value, except as any single human bestows upon something, just as the modern pragmatist explains. But I would never consider myself in any of their camps. Why?

What they completely fail to realize is that this also applies to them! They enjoy no monopoly on the truth, or at least they shouldn’t. The beliefs they have are in no way more "right" or "valuable" than anyone else’s. They need to put into application the obvious logical conclusion of their basic premises and theories. How so? By allowing others to have the right to opine, believe, pass on to their children, promote to others, and practice whatever they choose - no matter how "absurd", "ill informed" or "unscientific" they might conceive these things to be. The truth is that the views of Man held by the majority of the modern social scientists are just as absurd as any they so easily criticize.

It isn’t only a matter of separation of Church and State, or religion and government. What should be divorced from any and all government involvement is:

any system of belief about Man, the universe, and his relationship to the universe, whether called "religion", "science", "philosophy" or anything else - any ideology or orthodoxy whatsoever.

But the modern secular humanist, materialist and "follower of science" is quite happy to play the same power games his enemies (the State and Religion) played in times past. He will use the government to promote his ideas, above all others. He will use the educational system to wipe out all competitive ideas, leaving only his own. He will align with large financial interests to support his claims, opinions and ideology (i.e. psychiatry, psychology). He will set himself up in a position of authority, power and social position through his pretensions of knowledge and erudition.

While few materialists will understand it and none will accept this, they are the religious fanatics of modern times. They are the uncompromising ideologues. They are the rigid believers, incapable of entertaining even the slightest possibility that their world view may be flawed, and are also extremely willing to force their ideas on everyone else.

Ask a behavioral psychologist about what they do. They will answer with things like, "Science has shown us that Man responds to stimulus just as any animal, forms attitudes and behaves in exact conformity to environmental factors, and… blah-blah-blah…." "It’s our right and duty to apply what we know to Man and society to better the conditions of people all over the world". And so on. See? They believe it completely. They are convinced. They are sure. And just as any Nazi SS officer or torturer of the Spanish Inquisition, they will "do their work to make a better world", despite the rest of us.

Ask a psychiatrist. Ask a modern pragmatic philosopher. Ask a proponent of social engineering, a social scientist or people planner. Ask a member of the UN, Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, Bilderbergers, CIA, Department of Education, international banker, mega-corporate CEO, or college professor. You’ll generally get the same type answers. They all have the "truth" and they all attempt to get us all to conform to their notions of the way they conceive the universe to function - or more accurately, how they conceive it should function. Beware of elitists - those who think that they know what is best for everybody else.

"Science" has functionally replaced "religion" as the object of modern faith. Psychologically, the mechanics areexactly the same. This is not a cute concept or theory, like so many of their notions. This is exactly how the adherent of modern "science" functions. "Science" serves the same purpose "religion" served in past centuries - to give reasons for, explain, and make sense of the world we each find ourselves surrounded by. But sadly, it also demands strict adherence as did past religions and states. It devolves into dogma, rote ideology and strict orthodoxy - or else.

It acts in similar way as past religions - oppressing, demanding conformity, excluding all other possibilities, and using every means possible to gain a complete monopoly of thought, belief and behavior.

A major problem with this is that the modern systems of belief (i.e. materialism, secular humanism, etc.) involve methods of human control which have never existed before. Such a massive alignment of power, finance, and ideology have never before co-existed along with the tools and techniques of securing complete acceptance and conformity to the ideology (i.e. psychiatry, drugs, shock treatment, behavioral engineering, genetics, eugenics, education, media, politics, advertising). The coming together of all these elements does not portend for a bright future.

The theory of evolution is a part of the modern "scientific" view of the world. It takes its place as an ideological forerunner, and along with behavioral psychology, psychiatry, genetics and biochemistry as the current materialistic interpretation of Man which denies Man’s mind. What happened was this. "Science" reacted against religion in the 1800's - partly as a defense against the religious attacks against them, and partially as an attack against what they saw as irrationality. They wanted to allow Man to finally base his thoughts and actions on honest observation, proof, facts, and verifiable evidence - or "science". In their aim to do this, somewhere along the line, the awareness of Man - consciousness and Man's mind - were equated to the realm of things spiritual. The mind of Man became associated with notions of God, spirits, devils and mysticism, largely because its functions and content are invisible to objective observation. Thoughts, imagination, hopes, dreams, purposes, intentions, and all that an individual mind does cannot be perceived or detected outside of the awareness of the person whose mind it is. Since it's "invisible", and the modern scientist demands he addresses only observable things and events, he tossed out the mind of Man along with with God, spirits and devils. The mind of Man is a much different thing than God, devils, or angels. It is a hidden cause because it is invisible. And it does exist. Simply, the "scientific" rendition of reality allows for nothing which cannot be seen, detected, weighed or measured - since the human mind, and all it does, violates this, and even though it is real and every much exists, it was ignored, and remains very much ignored as a part of modern scientific dogma. In a nutshell, modern science "threw out the baby with the bath water". This was and continues to be a very major mistake.

The modern scientific materialist view is as much of the nature of an ideology as any religion ever was or is. Actually though the results are worse, because it doesn't simply assert things which are not true, as they claim religion does, but it denies the existence of something of great importance which is true - the human mind and all it does. This needs to be understood and their influence in this regard erased. This is not only because they harbor arbitrary belief systems and foist them upon the rest of us, but also, and more importantly, because their practices produce so much harm to people and society. The denial of the mind of Man effectively denies Man himself, and this has opened the door to tremendous inhumanity masquerading as its opposite.

The Two Witnesses From Heaven Will be Hell to the World

By Don Koenig

The ministry of the two witnesses from God in Revelation chapter 11 will last for 1260 days. This event is the most understated event of Bible prophecy. The witnesses, the two prophets from heaven will shake the world to its core and the whole world will rejoice when they are killed because they tormented those who dwell on the earth.

Rev 11:3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth.5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed.6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.7 And when they shall have finished their testimony, the beast that ascendeth out of the bottomless pit shall make war against them, and shall overcome them, and kill them.8 And their dead bodies shall lie in the street of the great city, which spiritually is called Sodom and Egypt, where also our Lord was crucified.9 And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.10 And they that dwell upon the earth shall rejoice over them, and make merry, and shall send gifts one to another; because these two prophets tormented them that dwelt on the earth.

As we see in this passage the two witnesses tormented them that dwelt on the earth. Apparently they tormented those on the earth so much that all those that dwell upon the earth will throw a worldwide party after they are killed by the Beast Antichrist. That party will still be going on 3 1/2 days later when God will raises them from the dead in the sight of all and takes them to heaven. The passage also tells us that these two witnesses will devour their enemies and they will smite the earth with plagues as often as they want. That is quite some delegation of power. Nobody in the history of the earth up to this point has been given such power. Even Moses could only announce the plagues that God told him would come if the Egyptians did not obey God. These two witnesses will be delegated the power to smite the earth with plagues as often as they deem necessary.

I am not going to get into the arguments of who these two witnesses are here. I will just say I think they will be Elijah and Moses or Elijah and Enoch. These will be God's top two lieutenants whom He calls Olive trees and Candlesticks (oil and light - full of the Holy Spirit and giving the light of Jesus to the world).

These witnesses certainly are men because they witnesses for 1260 days dressed in sack cloth and they are allowed to be killed after their prophetic ministry is over. They are not angels or some allegory representing the law and the prophets as amillennialists claim. If they are Elijah and Moses they would be the Old Testament chief prophet and the law giver. Therefore, they will authenticate what is written in the Bible.

Before I get into what the ministry of the two witnesses is all about I want to say something about us Bible prophecy teachers in general. Don't be deceived, there is not one of us who is sure that all end time events have to happen exactly as we teach. Any teacher who believes that they have all end time Bible prophecy figured out probably has delusions of grandeur. Not one of the people on the who's who list of Bible prophecy would totally agree with any other person on that list on certain points of Bible prophecy and almost all would disagree on one or more major points. So who on this list has all the truth? Some obviously have more truth on Bible prophecy than others but no one can be certain on all points. There simply are things we do not know and the best anyone can do in many cases is give an educated guess.

One of the reasons Bible prophecy teaching may have fallen out of favor in even premillennial churches could be because today there are so many conflicting theories from the Bible prophecy "experts". Not to mention that there are some bad apples preaching Bible prophecy. So whose view does a pastor use as a guide without offending those in his church that bought into the teaching of some other teacher? I think many Bible prophecy teachers need a little more humility and when writing books and articles we need to quit presenting our various theories as if they were absolute facts set in stone. Now having said that, I hope nobody will think that what I am about to say has to be fact. I am just throwing out some of my thoughts for consideration as an explanation for the role of the two witnesses of Revelation and why scripture says the world will hate them so much.

I suggest that everyone interested in Bible prophecy study the writing of many different biblical teachers and do no just think that any one teacher has all the truth. Many of us have it right in one area of prophecy and miss it in another area. Keep that in mind. This is not an exact science although true Bible prophecy teachers do get the most important points correct.

The two witness are the last two prophets that will come before Jesus establishes His kingdom on earth. They will start their ministry from Jerusalem for the first half of the still unfulfilled seven years period spoken of by Daniel. I do not think they will oversee the building of the third temple since they know it will be defiled by the Beast. The temple might actually be in place before they arrive on the scene and the animal sacrifice system for sin might be part of the reason why they are dressed in sack cloth morning the unbelief of Israel and Israel not accepting God's sacrificial Lamb for sin. The sackcloth probably also means that they will take no pleasure in the comforts of the world and they will be leading Israel and the world into repentance from sin.

Not much is said in scripture about what these two prophets will do so we have to take the little information we have and see if we can deduct their ministry from our overall understanding of the Bible and the purpose of God.

The Two Witnesses may have at least ten major roles on the earth.

1. In the ancient days of Israel God always sent His prophets before judgment in order to give people a chance to hear and repent. At this future time when God is once again dealing with Israel He will send His prophets once again. Thus, the two prophets in Israel will be sent to warn Israel and the world to repent of their sinful ways and accept Jesus as the Messiah who they will proclaim is about to return. They might tell the world exactly when the Lord will come and they certainly will tell the world that He is coming to judge the world and set up His kingdom on earth.

2. I believe God intends to use the Jews to give the final witness to all the world. He will seal 144,000 Jews and send them to all the nation of the earth (Rev 7: 3-8). I believe the greater fulfillment of the following passage will also then take place. I do not see how this passage was ever completely fulfilled until now.

Mat:10,6 But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7 And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. 8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give. 9 Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, 10 Nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the workman is worthy of his meat. 11 And into whatsoever city or town ye shall enter, enquire who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go thence. 12 And when ye come into an house, salute it. 13 And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city. 16 Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. 17 But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to the councils, and they will scourge you in their synagogues; 18 And ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and the Gentiles. 19 But when they deliver you up, take no thought how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. 20 For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in you. 21 And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the father the child: and the children shall rise up against their parents, and cause them to be put to death.22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved. 23 But when they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come. 24 The disciple is not above his master, nor the servant above his lord. 25 It is enough for the disciple that he be as his master, and the servant as his lord. If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household? 26 Fear them not therefore: for there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. 27 What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. 28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 29 Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father. 30 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. 31 Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows. 32 Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven. 33 But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven. 34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. 35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. 36 And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. 38 And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. 39 He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it. 40 He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me. 41 He that receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive a prophet's reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man's reward. 42 And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, he shall in no wise lose his reward.

The wording of Verse 42 strongly suggests it refers to the Sheep and Goat Judgment of the Gentiles in Matthew 25. This judgment in spite of what some Christians teach is not about how Christians treat other Christians or how others treat Christians it is really about how the world treated these 144,000 Jewish sealed brethren during the days of their ministry on earth.

The two witnesses will probably tell the nations that they must allow all Jews to go back to Israel. If they do not and resist, the prophets are likely to send judgments on those nations as often as they wish. Much like when Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt. It is not going to be a question of free choice. God appointed the nation of Israel for a end time purpose and now Israel will fulfill that purpose. The Gentile world will be judged on how they respond to God's prophets and how they treat the 144,000 sealed Jews and the nation of Israel.

3. They will prepare the way for God's Kingdom on the earth by setting up God's eternal law for nations to follow and to repent. Perhaps they will enforce a form of Jewish Dominion Theology and the people of the earth will be tormented by living under God's law because they loved living in their lawlessness. The "wicked one" or "lawless one" that rises out of the bottomless pit will be given the power to kill the two prophets and the whole world will rejoice. Thus, that will display that they never repented of their sins and did not receive the love of the truth that these prophets presented.

There is this misconception with some in Christianity that the Law was done away with but on the contrary the Law is perfect and eternal and all people of flesh must conform to the perfect Law or die. Christians entered the New Covenant where the Law was written in their heart and now they have a heart that by nature obeys the spirit of the Law. Many Jews will also come into the New Covenant through hearing and believing the teachings of the two prophets and when Jesus reveals Himself to Israel the second time. The New Covenant promise was always to Israel and the Jews without preconditions (Jer 31:31) but for the most part they never entered into the New Covenant because of unbelief and the Gentiles were grafted into the promise first. But, soon all Israel will hear the truth and many will accept God's Messiah. Those who willfully reject the Law and pollute the world with flagrant willful sin will be eliminated from the earth. Only one third of Israel will survive the tribulation and be refined through the fires (Zec 13:9). I think even less Gentiles will survive this period.

4. To verify that what had happened in the past and that was written in scriptures is indeed the truth. The whole gospel will be given and God's purpose for Israel and the the Church will be clearly presented and known to all. So everyone who rejects the truth henceforth will be without excuse.

5. To witnesses that Jesus is the Messiah and Lord of the Earth and that He is about to return in power and glory and set up His literal Kingdom on earth for a thousand years in order to restore the earth to the paradise it was before the fall of man.

6. To show the power and reality of God through many signs, wonders and judgments.

7. To expose the work of Satan on earth that will be culminated in the person we call the Antichrist.

8. To display the futility of resisting and rejecting God's will. When God's prophets are killed they will be resurrected by God on the third day in the sight of the whole world as a witnesses to all.

9. To warn of eternal damnation for all that reject Jesus Christ as Lord.

10. To proclaim God's forgiveness and love for all those who put their trust in Jesus Christ.

I think we totally underestimate the impact that these two prophets will have on the world. They will be second in power to no one until their ministry is complete. No weapon formed against them will succeed. If a nuclear missile is fired at them it will land on the nation that fired it. These prophets with supernatural powers will have God's angels at their disposal. Anyone who dares to harm them will in like manor be killed. They are going to have such a profound impact on the world that after they are risen and taken into heaven the sinful world will want to be led to believe that they can stop the kingdom of Jesus from coming. Thus, at the end of this period of Antichrist rule the Antichrist gathers all nations against Jerusalem to try to stop the second coming and the fulfillment of their prophecies.

Why would anyone on earth believe they can defeat the God of Heaven? Obviously a great deception takes place so the world will believe a lie because they did not want to believe the truth (2 Th 2:11.12). I personally think the Antichrist will claim to have come to earth as God to save it from the god of the Bible by claiming the god of the Bible is really the leader of a evil alien race of control freaks that want to enslave the people of earth. That will be the great deception and delusion. This concept is taught in "New Age" teaching and in some ufology.

The Satanic angels cast out of heaven will claim to have come to earth to save it from the biblical god when in reality their real intentions will be to destroy the Jews so that Jesus will have no Jews for His earthly kingdom. When killing the Jews fails because Michael the Archangel protects them in the mountains of Jordan. The Antichrist will lead the whole world against God in an attempt to have all human flesh on the earth totally destroyed. Jesus said if he did not shorten those days no flesh on earth would be saved.

In these days the truth will be twisted 180 degrees for those who wish to believe a lie. The two prophets of God will be called the Antichrist and his False Prophet by the Bible illiterate. While the real Antichrist will be looked at by most as God and the Savior of the world.

For 1260 days on earth every day will bring new decrees from the two prophets. What they say will be the major news story of the day and the whole world will quake with fear at their words. Although there will be rebellion against their decrees the people will soon learn that they will have to comply or receive judgment. It will be to the world like superior aliens came to earth and dictated to all earthlings what they must do or reap immediate consequences.

Like I said, this is very much how the world will spin it and that is why the earth rejoices when they are killed by the Beast Antichrist that rises out of the underworld. They will think their earthly savior stopped the plan of Jehovah and the plan of a Jewish kingdom ruled by Jesus. But instead they will receive the wrath of the Lamb and the wrath of God. God's son will return on schedule and God will destroy all those who would not have Jesus rule over them (Lu 19:27).